2024 Travel Rule Compliance Challenges and How to Overcome Them: Cross-Border Transactions

Differences between national Travel Rule requirements can be challenging for VASPs to navigate. Various regulators have interpreted and applied the Travel Rule differently, leading to various approaches across jurisdictions regarding:

• Timeline for enforcement of Travel Rule requirements

• Required originator and beneficiary information

• Compliance thresholds

• Transactions to/from self-hosted wallets

• Counterparty VASP due diligence obligations

• Transacting during the Sunrise Period

A transaction could be within the scope of Travel Rule requirements for one counterparty and outside the scope for the other. This issue is especially complex during the Sunrise Period. Even after the Travel Rule is fully implemented, national framework differences will likely continue to cause friction for VASPs.

‍

Practical examples to illustrate these challenges

In Estonia, virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are not required to collect or transmit beneficiary names. However, a beneficiary VASP in another jurisdiction may expect to receive beneficiary information and could be obliged to reject transactions where this information is missing.

Canadian originator VASPs must collect and transmit the beneficiary’s physical address. However, originator VASPs in other jurisdictions may not have this requirement. As a result, Canadian VASPs may often receive incomplete information that nonetheless meets the requirements of the originator VASP’s domestic framework.

In the United States, an originator VASP is required to collect and transmit Travel Rule information only when the transaction exceeds $3,000. In contrast, a beneficiary VASP in the European Union requires this information for transactions of any value.

‍

A non-exhaustive list of the differences in required originator and beneficiary information across jurisdictions

Approaches to the Challenges of Cross-Border Transactions

Below we discuss what can be done about the challenges associated with cross-border transactions, initiatives that are already in place, and which stakeholders are best positioned to drive solutions to these challenges:

FATF

Although global harmonization of Travel Rule requirements would certainly solve these challenges for VASPs, this is not a realistic solution and is not something that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) would or could mandate. National frameworks will also inevitably vary because, as the FATF points out, regulators take into account different risk profiles, contexts, and approaches to risk mitigation. [1] As such, the FATF Standards permit variation from the FATF’s Travel Rule, provided the minimum requirements are met.

REGULATORS

It is essential that regulators implement clear Travel Rule requirements for VASPs and that the frameworks address how VASPs should treat cross-border transactions where the requirements vary.

The U.K.’s Joint Money Laundering Steering Group's (JMLSG) guidance addresses this by ignoring cross-border discrepancies in the Travel Rule’s application. For instance, if a U.K. VASP complies with U.K.-specific requirements, it’s considered compliant even when dealing with jurisdictions that have more stringent rules. ^[2] On the other hand, if a U.K. VASP receives a deposit with incomplete or incorrect information, it must seek the missing details, irrespective of the originating VASP’s local thresholds. ^[3] 

We encourage the adoption of a more flexible deposit policy than the one that theJMLSG has adopted to facilitate smoother cross-border transactions. For example, a more lenient policy could permit VASPs to accept deposits without full Travel Rule information for transactions below the threshold set in the originating VASP’s country based on a risk assessment.

TRAVEL RULE SOLUTIONS

Travel Rule solutions are generally best positioned to ease some of the challenges for VASPs in facilitating cross-border transactions, especially when these transactions are happening at scale.

Notabene embeds jurisdictional requirements from more than 20 jurisdictions. Specifically, the system has encoded the applicable compliance thresholds and required information scope in each supported jurisdiction. This allows VASPs to validate their Travel Rule transfers against the Travel Rule requirements applicable in both their own and their counterparty’s jurisdiction. Using the available settings, VASPs can decide whether a Travel Rule transfer is required for a given transaction. They can make this decision based on their own compliance threshold or by considering the lowest threshold amount of the jurisdictions involved in the transaction.

VASPS

VASPs’ Travel Rule policies and processes should proactively address cross-border transactions. These policies need to take into account the differences across national frameworks and what actions are mandated by applicable domestic regulations. Additionally, partnering with the right Travel Rule solution can remove some of the operational complexity associated with cross-border transactions. When assessing different options, VASPs should closely assess the solution’s jurisdiction coverage and functionality when it comes to cross-border transactions.

‍

Notabene’s 2024 status check

‍

From a technical perspective, the differences in Travel Rule requirements across jurisdictions can be effectively reconciled. Solutions like Notabene’s jurisdictional validation are key in the process. However, from a policy perspective, it is crucial to ensure that VASPs are free to transact with foreign counterparties, despite the differences in requirements.

A risk-based approach that allows decisions on whether to accept transactions with missing information should be adopted. This flexibility is necessary in cases where the originator VASP is not legally obligated or able to provide the required information. Adopting stricter approaches might, in practice, prevent VASPs from accepting a significant number of transactions from their foreign counterparts.

‍

{{report2="/cta-components"}}

‍